6 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Before I read the story, my immediate reaction to the photo was that this was an interesting piece. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or justify the vandalism in any way, but the burned version is way more interesting.

John - Yes, I very much know what you mean. Not exactly that the burned remains are more interesting than the original installation, but that the "before" and "after" together, the whole story, is more interesting than either alone.

I was reminded of Carly Troncale's piece last year, in which the huge fire re-exposed her pink sheets of plywood. The fire completed the work (for me). I can't talk or think about that project without including the story of the fire and how her (charred) paintings were visible again.

hi all, very interesting all of what you say. for me, the shock is that someone would torch such a thing. whether or not it's better as a piece before or after the torching the act of vandalism is what punches me in the gut.

Jody was very upset. She had done most of the concept development (as well as the surgical modification of the critters). The gallery director was upset, particularly that the consequences could have been much more devastating. I was mainly baffled. I spent some time wondering what about this installation was so provocative. Wondering what about it could elicit such a reaction. Then I realized that there was nothing uniquely provocative about it (beyond its cuteness provoking a juvenile desire to violate and destroy). This was most likely just a random act of drunken vandalism. I do agree that there is something fitting and ironic in the forlorn, abject, misfit toys going out in a blaze of glory. But as one of the artists, of course, I wish it had been an intentional act on our part executed at the end of the installation, rather than a reckless, gasoline fueled, arson joy ride.